File talk:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wrong proportions[edit]

The proportions are completely wrong. This image is 10:7 instead of the expected 2:1. Urhixidur 05:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.flags.net/ISMA.htm says it is 1:2, government has their image at 10:7, but no text. Zscout370 03:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to Znamierowski's World Encyclopedia of Flags, Lorenz Books, 1999, the Isle of Man civil ensign is (since 1971) a 1:2 red ensign with the Man badge. That is to say, a red flag with the Union Jack in its top hoist quarter, and the triskelion in the middle of the fly half. The national flag is the red flag with just the triskelion, in 1:2 proportions (introduced 1929, present design adopted 9 july 1968). Until we can find a source stating otherwise, the proportions need to be fixed.
Urhixidur 13:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Proportions fixed, triskelion horizontally centered, but vertical centering merely eyeballed from FOTW img & dimensions/scale (and construction, probably) of triskelion still probably all imperfect. Will address all in due time if nobody beats me to it. ¦ Reisio 18:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grey colour missing[edit]

This image misses the grey colour in the Triskelion. Some portions that are white, should be grey. - Quistnix 16:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centering[edit]

Continuing the discussion from my talk page here. Fry1989, why do you think the triskelion should be centered based on its top and bottom edges? Both FotW and VM suggest the point where the legs meet should be in the center of the flag (though I couldn't find any official sources for either centering method). SiBr4 (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've said why twice, I shouldn't have to say it a third time. Fry1989 eh? 19:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fry1989: You said "for me the integrity of the image is more important" and "it doesn't quite look right", both completely subjective, without any explanation why you think the current file looks better. Do you happen to have any sources that support the current centering of the triskelion? SiBr4 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It doesn't look right" may be subjective but the matter of whether it's in the middle of the flag or not is not. Centering it the way you are, the triskelion is off. Fry1989 eh? 04:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources that say the triskelion should be in the exact center of the flag? Again, I centered it as described on FotW, according to which the point where the legs meet should be in the middle of the flag, i.e. an imaginary circle around the triskelion is centered (not a rectangle as in the current version). SiBr4 (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fry1989: If you're not going to reply I see no reason not to revert back. SiBr4 (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have told you why plenty of times and if you don't care for the answer that is your problem, but if you revert the file I will demand it be protected. Fry1989 eh? 17:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your only reasoning is your personal opinion ("the triskelion is off" is subjective too). Both centering methods are equally valid; in the current image a rectangle around the triskelion would be exactly centered on the flag, while in the sourced image a circle around the triskelion would. SiBr4 (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to leave these here so unbiased people can visually compare the two images and understand why I am concerned that the style of centering based on the imaginary circle created by the legs is not correct. Fry1989 eh? 02:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To visually show how both are centered, and to show that both are valid (but not necessarily correct), I uploaded another image. SiBr4 (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images moved to next section. SiBr4 (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centering Pt. 2[edit]

Fry1989's original file (left), SiBr4's change (right)
Comparison of both centering methods

Starting a new discussion split from the AN/UP thread. This section should not discuss any user's behavior, but just which of the two versions should be used, whether the separate upload should be kept, whether the sources are reliable, etc. SiBr4 (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


A hopefully neutral introduction for anyone who came to this section directly. On 13 October 2013 I overwrote File:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg with a version with a reduced code and a differently centered triskelion (the three-legged symbol in the center of the flag). The previous version, uploaded 18 February 2013 by Fry1989, centered the emblem using the "align and distribute" tool in Inkscape, which had the effect of an imaginary rectangle touching the edges of the triskelion being exactly centered (left file in the comparison to the right). My new version put the yellow part where the legs meet in the center of the flag, or equivalently a circle around the triskelion, as described at Flags of the World (which references the book "British Flags and Emblems" by Graham Bartram). For the image this means that the triskelion is 5.3% of the flag height lower than formerly.

After a mini-revert war and an ongoing thread at AN there's still no agreement as for which of the two flag files should be kept: the unsourced previous version using the "rectangular" centering method or the FotW-sourced new version using the "circular" centering. SiBr4 (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain why you have moved my comment as an "edit conflict" when your second post wasn't for 19 minutes after mine? Fry1989 eh? 20:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it's appropriate for an introduction to precede any comments on the issue. I started writing it before you posted your comment, hence the edit conflict template. SiBr4 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Absent of any official construction sheet from the Manx Government, both files with the two alternative styles of centering the triskelion should be kept. Fry1989 eh? 19:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both may be kept, but when it comes to which version should be used, I think any source is better than no source. To make a judgement on how official the source is, it would help if somebody who has access to a copy of Graham Bartram's book could comment here. SiBr4 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Manx flag appears on p. 11 of Graham Bartram's British Flags and Emblems (2004). No construction sheet or construction details are given, nor can I find any source cited. From the image there, it looks to me as though the triskelion is somewhere between SiBr4's and Fry1989's versions: the distance from the top is definitely greater than that from the bottom, but the point where the legs meet appears to be very slightly above the midpoint of the flag. The reference to Bartram's book at FOTW seems to apply only to the statement that "the Triskellion is positioned slightly below the horizontal centreline" and not to the entire construction sheet, which is unsourced. It might be desirable at this stage to contact the Flag Institute directly for a (possibly) more authoritative statement. Alkari (?), 11 April 2014, 23:06 UTC

Thanks Alkari for that. I've analyzed the Flag Institute's image and it's about halfway between rectangular and circular, but slightly closer to the latter (a distance of 4.1% and 3.7% of the height respectively). I'll consider asking them about the flag. SiBr4 (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Overwhelming consensus for circular centering. There is some evidence presented that the correct construction may be slightly off centre, but not by as much as rectangular centering which had support from only one contributor. SpinningSpark 01:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starting an RfC following this edit request on EnWP. Please comment on which file to use across the Wikimedia projects (see second message in the parent section for an introduction). SiBr4 (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support circular centering (SiBr₄'s file)[edit]

  1. As proposer and uploader. To summarize my reasons, this centering is supported by FotW (I couldn't find an official source, but no sources at all were given for the opposing version), and it is closer to how the file had looked for more than seven years before Fry's change in February 2013. SiBr4 (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The only sources that were found support this version. No sources were found or produced that support otherwise. The only source I found that might support Fry1989s version is incomplete and only gives information about the triskelion, not about the proportions of the flag or where the triskelion should be placed. Dqfn13 (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, which source is that? SiBr4 (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Isle of Man website. As can be seen the flag is incomplete and the information is only about the triskelion. Dqfn13 (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with Dqfn13. Sources (here and here) indicate that it should be centered with the circle method. EvilFreD overleg 22:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. So in one corner we have Vexilla Mundi, Flags of the World, and CRW Flags; in the other corner we have Fry's stubborn gut feelings? - FakirNL (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The crwflags.com and flagspot.net pages are both mirrors of FotW and thus the same site. Still, two is more than none. SiBr4 (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed. - FakirNL (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. See here. Also the source is there. Clear cut case. What worries me more is the stubbornness of compulsively perpetuating personal views in changing official flags of this user. I ran into this since he changed the flag unwantedly and unasked for in a talk archive page of mine. Can imagine his road signs are OK but he should definitely stay away from official flags and the likes let alone misusing a cross wiki tool for these kind of changes. This borders to clear cut cross wiki damage out of personal point of view resulting in wrong flags everywhere. MoiraMoira (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sources should lead to consensus. Not voting. The sources speak for the design of SIBR ₄ 's file --Arch (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per all the sources this is the correct version. Sources trump personal opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support rectangular centering (Fry1989's file)[edit]

  1.  Support Whereas
    • There remains no conclusive sources anywhere for SiBr4's style of centering the triskelion
    • That FOTW is both inconclusive and supports both forms of construction as possibilities
    • This file has never since it's creation 2005 used SiBr4's style of centering the triskelion
    • SiBr4's style of centering creates a visual disparity in which the triskleion appears both off to the right from centre and lower from centre
    • SiBr4's version has not been supported by any group of users in a manner which can be considered a "consensus"\
    • The file was protected solely to prevent edit warring and not to grant any opinion on the correctness of either version
    The forceful use of SiBr4's image is unacceptable.
    It should also be noted that this RfC may violate canvassing rules as the invitation to participate by SiBr4 was directed towards a group of users who had already stated their opinion on the situation in advance. Fry1989 eh? 01:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked to this discussion from w:Talk:Flag of the Isle of Man, w:WT:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, w:WT:WikiProject Isle of Man and the two active discussions at w:Template talk:Country data Isle of Man and your Dutch WP talk page (where I pinged everyone who commented).
    Could you please quote the part of the FotW page that says that the other construction method is also a possibility? I can't see a part that clearly says that. SiBr4 (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fry1989 - Please refrain from such comments. I never even heard of you but when your edits were encountered by me and others and your actions on nl-wiki caused serious investigations and discussions involving four nl-wiki admins who I have to tell you were rather shocked of the outcome and now seriously concerned about the damage you did by your compulsive actions I guess it is logical to find them here now like me. This is a worrysome situation and either you clean up your actions and refrain from matters that are harmful and stick to things you can do well or you will keep running into problems I am afraid to say. MoiraMoira (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have created no damage to anything, and hyperbole like that will accomplish nothing. I can show damage caused to nl-wiki by reverting my edits there, including causing image inconsistencies on articles. It is clear to me this RfC has already been manipulated and I consider any outcome as invalid. Inviting users to participate when you already know how they !vote violates canvassing rules. Fry1989 eh? 17:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the English Wikipedia guideline on canvassing (Commons does not have an equivalent), my notifications would be canvassing if I selectively notified editors who agree with me, which I did not do. I pinged everybody who gave their opinion in the discussion. If there would be anyone who supported you I would ping them as well, but in the three months since the start of this dispute I have yet to find anyone who does.
    You have yet to give a single argument for your version not based on your personal opinion, refuse to listen to a thing I say (you're still accusing me of edit warring and forcing my way through despite the entire AN thread), use the fact that you uploaded your file before I uploaded mine as an excuse to globally replace the protected file with yours, again based solely on your opinion (don't deny that; it's a duck to me), to which at least five editors have objected, demand me to get a consensus for my version while putting blunt comments on my talk page where no-one sees them, and when I do whatever I can to get that consensus you need so badly by starting this RfC, you accuse me of canvassing and consider it "invalid". I'm sorry for the bold overuse, but the final bit of my assumption of good faith with you is now gone. SiBr4 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any good faith in you either so it's mutual. You edit warred (the definition of which is that you repeatedly reverted to your preferred revision) to force your change instead of following normal policy of discussing and gaining consensus when your change is reverted or disputed, and you do not have conclusive sources. You also followed me around onto other projects where you do not have a native account to invite users to participate in an RfC after you already knew their opinions on the matter. Fry1989 eh? 19:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not follow you around; Dqfn13 notified me of the ongoing discussion at the Dutch WP, which led me to starting this RfC in the first place. I will no longer comment on your accusations for canvassing, edit warring, hiding behind force or whatever else since I know that you don't listen to a single thing I say and just repeat the same false accusations over and over. SiBr4 (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many times did you revert this file after your original upload? Three times. You did not start a discussion or an RfC or try and gain some sort of consensus first, you just reverted every time you felt I didn't respond fast enough, and the file had to be protected and the blocking admin said it was to stop any more edit warring. You can deny it all you want but you did it and the record is right here for everyone to see, you did. Until you admit the truth and stop calling it only an accusation, it is impossible for anyone to take you seriously. Fry1989 eh? 20:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One doesn't even need to leave this page to disprove at least one of these claims. After you reverted back for the third time without a helpful edit summary, I started the discussion above to ask why; afterwards you repeated your subjective opinion that "the triskelion is off" and did not answer my later questions. As I told you the earlier two reverts were based on misunderstandings, not on a desire to push my version through, while the third in retrospect partially was but had your apparent refusal to reply as main reason. You may consider it edit warring if you want to, but based on both the reasons for and time between the reverts I don't. Please at least let go of the stuff that you know was already discussed months ago with the AN thread and is completely irrelevant to the RfC we're holding this discussion on. SiBr4 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether you think you edit warred or not, an admin clearly did. You can defend yourself all you want to, but repeatedly reverting an image is the definition of edit warring. I did it too, but you're not innocent. Fry1989 eh? 01:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise version?[edit]

  • Right. While FotW and Vexilla Mundi are the only sources found that actually clearly make a claim regarding which method should be used (by virtue of the construction sheets, and the text underneath it on FotW), some more sources have images where the triskelion is centered somewhere between the "circular" and "rectangular" extremes:
So would it be reasonable to follow these three sources and create an image with the triskelion positioned slightly higher than in the circular version (a suggestion would be to center it on 48% from the top of the field, so it's 2% from circular and 3.3% from rectangular)? SiBr4 (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing[edit]

I'm giving Fry1989 a last bit of time to respond before I ask for formal closure. SiBr4 (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Valid[edit]

{{Edit request}}

Please update/add…
date={{other date|<|2005}}
author=Edited by [[User:Reisio|Reisio]], [[User:Alkari|Alkari]], e.a.
source=[https://sourceforge.net/projects/sodipodi/files/sodipodi-clipart/ Sodipodi flag collection], [https://openclipart.org/detail/119587/isle-of-man-by-anonymous OpenClipart]
permission={{PD-OpenClipart}}{{insignia}}
other fields={{igen|S|v|+}}
…and remove…
== {{int:license-header}} ==
{{PD-OpenClipart}}
{{insignia}}

–Be..anyone (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how moving the licensing information to the permission field is a definitive improvement and not a matter of taste?    FDMS  4    02:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PD is no license, and apart from that a matter of taste, yes: For the future COM:MRD business as much info as possible in {{Information}}, as the name says. But {{Location}} and/or {{Object location}} would still need their special "ummediately after {{Information}}" place.<shrug /> –Be..anyone (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Be..anyone: editprotection lowered. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Thanks, updated. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Flag_of_the_Isle_of_Man.svg&oldid=154977160"